The photo used on the BBC's story about Boris Johnson's pledge to increase the area of the UK's "protected" land illustrates our bizarre notions of protection. Anywhere else on Earth, we would recognise this scene, in our temperate rainforest band, as an ecological disaster zone.
This is why I find it hard to get excited about government pledges to defend the living world. Meaning dissolves in a haze of undefined terms and unexamined baselines.
Our national parks are largely composed of sheep ranches, grouse shoots and deer stalking estates. Yet they form the core of the "protected" areas Johnson has promised to expand. They make a mockery of the government’s pledge, even before the ink is dry.
This is what British rainforest looks like (photo by Neil Burnell). Yet it has been eradicated almost everywhere. Why isn't its restoration a government priority? Why do we tolerate "national parks" that are ecological deserts?
More British rainforest pics. These are tiny remnant pockets, mostly in gorges too steep to graze sheep.
A good definition of rainforest is forest wet enough to support epiphytes - plants that grow on other plants. This is where we would expect to find it (sciencedirect.com/science/articl…):
Broadly speaking, while you would expect a mix of habitat types in central and eastern Britain, in the western uplands, rainforest would be the dominant ecosystem. It has been eradicated mostly by sheep and cattle grazing: they selectively browse out tree seedlings.
The old trees die in their boots, and there are no young ones to replace them. In many remnant woods, especially in Wales, you see a complete absence of understorey: sheep have eaten all the seedlings. I repeatedly find patches with no trees younger than 100 years.
The subsidy rules are clear: you must keep your sheep out of the woods. In Wales, in my experience, they are brazenly flouted almost everywhere, and still the money is paid. While this continues, why should we believe any government that says it will restore our ecosystems?
This applies to all four nations of the UK. They talk the talk, but won't stand up to the tremendous cultural power that farmers wield. This cultural power seems to be even greater than the economic power of many corporate sectors.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. The one benefit of Brexit was a new farm subsidy system, paying for public goods like ecological restoration. But now the government has frozen the new grants, while swiftly cutting off the old ones, leaving farmers high and dry. It's deeply unfair and highly destructive. 🧵
2. It will leave farmers who started investing in restoration out of pocket, and destroy their faith in the green transition. The sharpness of the transition will drive some to bankruptcy.
3. Two obvious questions:
A. What is the government playing at?
B. Where are the big environmental NGOs who asked for this transition, but are now failing to defend it? Why are they not raising hell about this betrayal?
1. People are objecting to my lashing of academics and intellectuals in today's column. I understand this. Here’s my reasoning. I chose examples of topics that are endlessly circled by researchers with ever diminishing returns, while huge and existential questions are ignored.🧵
2. I see the obsession with the Bloomsbury Group etc as highfalutin celebrity culture. The effort and attention spent on it, in scholarship, publishing and reviews, seems to me to signal a deep sickness at the heart of intellectual endeavour. It has a name. Denial.
3. It reminds me of Eliot’s comparison of the mindless gossip in the pub with the mindless gossip in the high society salon in Part II of The Wasteland:
"‘Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’
But O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag -
It’s so elegant
So intelligent"
1. A few days ago, I wrote a thread about the pros and cons of staying on this platform and asked for your views. They were very helpful. As a result, I’ve decided to stop using X from January 20. Already I’m mostly posting now on BlueSky (@georgemonbiot.bsky.social) instead.🧵
2. I won’t delete this account, as I don’t want to lose the archive. But I won’t post anything here after then. Will you join me in setting January 20th (a significant date) for the Xodus?
3. I thought for a while that the best alternative would be Threads. But Meta’s deliberate downgrading of political content and suspension of journalists on Threads rules it out as a prime platform for people like me. .theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
1. Who really won the US election? The fossil fuel companies and other polluting industries. We scarcely heard about them during the election campaign, which is just how they like it. Almost everything we *did* hear about was a distraction from the real agenda. 🧵
2. Trump’s campaign was an economic war against the interests of almost everyone on Earth, on behalf of the planet’s most powerful and destructive industries. But it was dressed up, as always, as a culture war: a trick that has been used to great effect for more than a century.
3. It’s not as if Biden/Harris were seriously curtailing polluting industries, especially oil and gas. It’s shocking how little Harris even mentioned the existential threat to humanity that climate breakdown presents. But now? It’s a free-for-all.
1. Here are my thoughts on the pros and cons of staying on this platform.
Pro: We were here long before Musk took it over. We built this.
Con: He has used our creation to help elect a far-right autocrat, and build his own grim political career.
🧵
2. Pro: We should never cede any space, real or virtual, to the far right. Fascist trolls are trying to drive us out. Don't give them the satisfaction.
Con: Our presence could be used to legitimise a far-right hellsite.
3. Pro: It remains, amid the viciousness, a good place to share information, ideas and opinions.
Con: It is also an abysmal, dispiriting place to inhabit, the humour, lightness and kindness crushed by bots and trolls.
1. My column on what happened, what comes next, and just how easy our fake democracies are to overthrow. + short thread on where our remaining hopes lie. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2. People seek to destroy what they feel excluded from. Centralised “democracies” exclude all but a rarefied circle from genuine power. Centralised democracy is a contradiction in terms.
3. Disempowered people tend to be profoundly unimpressed by “rational arguments” for this faction or for that one: they have an entirely reasonable desire – however unreasonable its expression may be – to kick the system over.